A staff member of the World Food Program (WFP) examining the remains of the UN’s logistic base in Juba after looting this summer.
Photograph: Albert Gonzalez Farran/AFP/Getty Images

In July this year, nearly every international humanitarian organisation pulled out some staff from South Sudan’s capital, Juba, following days of fighting. In the case of my organisation (Care International), we were back in the country within five days. But three months on, many institutions continue to maintain a minimal presence on the ground and the mood among aid workers has dipped following the reports of rape and murder of humanitarians and continuing attacks in parts of the country that seem to be purposefully targeting aid workers.

South Sudan has now become one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be an aid worker, with a total of 67 humanitarians killed since the outbreak of conflict in 2013.

So what is the threshold for withdrawal? Each NGO will have its own answer, but is there a bottom line we all share? Is the need dire enough to justify continuing to help the people affected even after the killing of one aid worker, maybe two?

Nobody wants to make this kind of cold-blooded calculation and despite what some may think, there is rarely a guy squirrelled away in a dusty windowless HQ crunching these kinds of numbers and assessing risk. Instead, it often comes down to individuals in the country, like me, to make these terrible decisions – the bottom line for us right now is that we will stay. With one in five people forced to flee their homes and more than half the population needing urgent humanitarian assistance, the need is too great.

While NGOs can’t control all the factors responsible for security, we need to look at how programmes can function when staff cannot access them.

Attack on aid workers in South Sudan: 'There was incredible naivety'

Read more

One way is to empower local communities to take ownership of projects – this can be key to keeping programmes alive in some of the most dangerous places. In Dadaab refugee camp, Kenya, Care International has trained more than 1,500 refugees to support the humanitarian operation. During times of heightened security threats this has allowed refugees themselves to continue running operations when the camp has been inaccessible to non-refugee staff.

Another measure that could be taken to ensure NGOs stay present in South Sudan and improve the safety for aid workers is reform of the UN peacekeeping force in the country. Around $1bn is spent on peacekeeping forces in South Sudan who have repeatedly been found to have failed in their basic mandate of protecting civilians and aid workers.

As we see a new UN secretary general about to take office – one with a humanitarian background – and a new head of the UN mission in South Sudan, now is the time to make changes. Countries providing funds to peacekeeping forces around the world must hold troops accountable to higher standards and make sure that their performance is a core focus area for António Guterres Guterres in his new office.

If you would like to comment on the unfolding situation for aid workers in South Sudan, please email us at Globaldevpros@theguardian.com, putting ‘Aid Worker safety’ in the subject field.